Even though I am a Creationist, I actually agree with tame_deuces on that point. Evolution is specifically about the evolution of living things.. Darwin himself noted that the question How did living things come to be in the first place? was not germane to his argument.

tame_deuces:

Not at all. What is absurd is the claim by atheists that there is no Creator aka Jehovah and that life resulted from non-life by itself.


Alter2Ego

________________
"That people may know that you, whose name is JEHOVAH, you alone are the Most High over all the earth." ~ Psalms 83:18

Bladesman87:

I quoted pro-evolutionist Ernst Mayr who admitted the fossils record does not support evolution theory, which states all creatures gradually transitioned from a common biological ancestor. Your fixation with abiogenesis theory--because you cannot overcome it--is an excuse you are now using to PRETEND that I have not presented arguments against evolution theory itself.

Alter2Ego

________________
"That people may know that you, whose name is JEHOVAH, you alone are the Most High over all the earth." ~ Psalms 83:18

Well said!

There is no actual example that I'm aware of where non-life became life by itself.

Dishonest or stupid? Which is it? You were provided with the FULL quote by Mayr, and it actually is anything but what you claim it is. It was most certainly NOT an argument against evolution.

I’m going to do what you did to Mayr. The bolder is your own quote; a creationists arguing that God does not exist.

Alter2Ego specifically identified Mayr as "pro-evolution." He was quoting a leading Evolutionist as acknowleging the paucity of transitional fossils in the fossil record.

Alter2Ego never argued that Mayr thought that the paucity of transitional fossils was a defeater for evolution.

Then why does he/she keep bringing it up? Mayr’s full passage specifically details why we don’t expect to see the transitional fossils that are under discussion. Therefore the lack of such fossils is irrelevant. What is the purpose of bringing up Mayr’s quote then other than a “gotcha! See even evolutionists don’t believe the evidence supports their theory.”

Again, dishonest or lacking in comprehension of the argument and the evidence for it; those are the possibilities. (My apologies, Alter2ego, my use of the word “stupid” in my earlier post was uncalled for. I was in a bit of a bad mood because of things unrelated to you, but that’s no excuse and I am sorry for that choice of words). It would similarly be dishonest of me to use his/her op as a “gotcha! See even creationists don’t really believe God exists” quote.

The context of Mayr being quoted was to show that even some Evolutionists acknowledge a lack of transitional fossils. I think it may have been tame_deuces who has claimed that transitory fossils are common in the fossil record. Alter2Ego and tame_deuces can obviously speak for themselves, but I don't see anything wrong with Alter2Ego quoting Mayr , given the context of why the Mayr quote was relevant to a specific aspect of the fossil record.

stremba70:

You are suggesting that I am quoting Ernst Mayr out of context and that he did actually mean the following 1982:

"What one actually found was nothing but discontinuities: All species are separated from each other by bridgeless gaps; intermediates between species are not observed . . . The problem was even more serious at the level of the higher categories."

Really? Then why did Mayr repeat the same thing 19 years later regarding gaps in the fossils record due to no intermediates? Notice the last sentence that I am quoting below from what Ernst Mayr said in 2001.

"When we look at the living biota, whether at the level of the higher taxa or even at that of the species, discontinuities are overwhelmingly frequent. . . . The discontinuities are even more striking in the fossil record. New species usually appear in the fossil record suddenly, not connected with their ancestors by a series of intermediates."

Mayr, a proevolution paleontologist, confirmed the Genesis creation account (without intending to), namely, that creatures did not evolve into something entirely different but instead "appear in the fossil record suddenly, not connected with their ancestors by a series of intermediates."

Scripture makes it clear that all creatures were created as-is, but with the ability to produce VARIATIONS of themselves. That's how we end up with different breeds of dogs, for example. In fact notice part of the Genesis creation account below. Take special note of the words that are bolded in blue within the quoted verses.

"{20} And God went on to say: 'Let the waters swarm forth a swarm of living souls and let flying creatures fly over the earth upon the face of the expanse of the heavens.' {21} And God proceeded to create the great sea monsters and every living soul that moves about, which the waters swarmed forth according to their kinds, and every winged flying creature according to its kind. And God got to see that it was good. {24} And God went on to say: 'Let the earth put forth living souls according to their kinds, domestic animal and moving animal and wild beast of the earth according to its kind.' And it came to be so. {25} And God proceeded to make the wild beast of the earth according to its kind and the domestic animal according to its kind and every moving animal of the ground according to its kind. And God got to see that it was good." (Genesis 1:20-21, 24-25)

Alter2Ego

________________
"That people may know that you, whose name is JEHOVAH, you alone are the Most High over all the earth." ~ Psalms 83:18

stremba70:

I quoted Ernst Mayr's entire sentence from his 1982 book The Growth of Biological Thought Diversity, Evolution, and Inheritance in which he wrote: "What one actually found was nothing but discontinuities: All species are separated from each other by bridgeless gaps; intermediates between species are not observed."

What you did was isolate a few words from part of a sentence in my opening post, a prime example of quoting out of context.



Alter2Ego

________________
"That people may know that you, whose name is JEHOVAH, you alone are the Most High over all the earth." ~ Psalms 83:18

There is no question that you are quoting Mayr out of context, putting as his own view an objection raised by "the students of diversity" , as proven by the full quotation posted by John21. The passage you are quoting comes from a book by Mayr on the history of evolutionary thought, and is describing an objection to natural selection made by critics of natural selection, an objection to which Mayr responds by saying:

"It was not until the period of the new systematics that Rensch, Mayr, and others demonstrated the populational origin of the discontinuities (Mayr, 1942; 1963) and that the geneticists supplied the evidence on the variation needed to permit natural selection to be effective."

More precisely, Mayr is describing how for the first few decades after Darwin evolution was generally accepted, but natural selection was not, and it was not until the modern synthesis combining natural selection and Mendelian genetics in the 1940s that it became the consensus view of scientists. Part of the reason for this view becoming the consensus was because it explained how discontinuities in the fossil record are consistent with natural selection, contrary to your own claim.

We can get to the fossil record but I do my best not to end up diluting my posts too much when a particular point is important.

Right now that point is getting you to understand that abiogenesis isn't necessary for evolution. It's necessary for atheism, but not evolution.

You have posted other arguments, of course, but right now I'm taking issue with a particular one, so please address that issue. To repeat it succinctly, even if abiogenesis is impossible without the input of a God, that does not mean that such a God couldn't make the first living organisms and use evolution to arrive at humans.

I agree.

That sounds more like adaptation than evolution. Also creation implies that things were put here in perfect form by an “Intelligent Designer”.

It’s possible God put water and some atoms and electrons and life came out of water and “primordial soup” but it’s unlikely when you acknowledge lack of transitory fossils. We literally should see transitioning stages but we never do. I’m sure science explains this away using big words but it’s really just smoke and mirrors IMO.

Even science has admitted there is a notion of “missing link” that is inexplicable.

Also my real contention with evolution is that you should see half monkey/ half human type people and every stage in between but you will never see this in any transitional forms. You tend to just see perfect species that have finished evolving. They may adapt and change their hair color or body shape but you don’t see a monkey ever having more human like offspring.

To my limited understanding of genetics the code is written like a book and while you can mix genes like two recessive to get that newer and rarer trait (it always had to have been there) but you can’t magically mix genes and have it evolve into another transient life form. I’m pretty sure you get your genes from both parents pre existing genes. The genetic code was there before and alway had to be there to give the genes. Not the other way around. It makes evolution almost impossible to conceptualize, like say having a certain trait is advantageous, the trait always had to exist before so how do new traits get introduced?

How would God creating the first basic microscopic life and leaving it to steadily change over time until it became all current life on Earth not sound like evolution?

All I'm trying to do right now is get OP to understand that abiogenesis and evolution are two separate issues.

Otherwise, this is why I don't really debate evolution. Let me just grant for a second that evolution is false. Let's grant that the scientists have got it all wrong. Do you really think the reason they've got it wrong is because someone forgot to ask "Where are the half-monkeys?". Or do you think maybe that's a question asked and answered a thousand times and it'd be worth you looking up those answers before attempting to criticise the theory?

I know this sounds condescending, but I also know that theists deal with this kind of silliness from atheists all the time, so hopefully you can understand why it's frustrating. It's like me asking "Well, if Jesus is God then how could he die on a cross, huh?". I should actually understand the Bible and the principles before I try to pick holes.

Even Darwin says in origin of species there would be a ton of transitory fossils found and if there weren’t then his hypothesis was wrong.

To me that’s the crux of the argument

Science usually insists on proof to corroborate a story or it remains to be a faith and attacking the religion/God to boot for being faith based.

Too much faith based science for my liking.

Abiogenesis is just the first step…

How do we get from amoebas to humans?
Why do we never see any other intermediary stages?

Well Darwin died about 150 years ago so you might find he's a bit out of date now.

You can type "transitional fossils" into google and find example after example. So instead of asking "Where are they?" maybe look some up? Either you'll be happy to find them or you'll be on the path to actually offering a substantive critique.

Abiogenesis is a different thing entirely to evolution. One could be false and the other still true. Abiogenesis might be necessary for atheism but it's not necessary for evolution.

If that’s sufficient for you then I guess we will just have to agree to disagree on this one.

That’s a fair point and I don’t disagree

If what's sufficient for me?

You said there were no transitional forms. I'm saying if you punch it into google you'll find loads of examples of what are at least purported to be fossils of transitional forms. So what I'm trying to figure out is if you're saying you've never looked them up or if you have some serious critique of the evidence.

It's not about what's sufficient to me.

Define “transitional fossil”. Too often, creationists define that term in such a way that it becomes a straw man. You will NEVER find fossils that look like blends of modern organisms, for example; evolution does not predict that you will. What you do expect to find are organisms that do not look like modern ones. For example, chimpanzees did NOT evolve into humans, so there will be no chimp-man fossils. What there will be is some ancestral primate species. There will be other species that represent small variations on that species, each becoming more human like. There will be other variants with each becoming more chimp like. That’s exactly what the fossil record shows.

If you’re looking for half human/half chimp fossils, you’re out of luck. Evolution doesn’t predict them. But I’ve gone on enough. The link below provides some good information on transitional fossils if you care to actually read it and learn something.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html

To the question of where did all life on Earth come from, is there isn't a satifactory answer.
The evolution theory has large holes in the evidence, as has already been expressed.
If all things evolve why are there still simple organisms?
Religions rely on blind faith, you believe or you dont believe the doctrine. I stopped believing in fairy tales long ago, even though most sell an attactive product.